Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36179924)

Actually, I asked how long has it has "often" been described as Live TV.

I asked around my family (and friends) and everyone defined Live TV as what you would expect, broadcast of an event as its happening, for example, a Football Match.

They consider the rest to be "Terrestrial TV" or "Streaming (TV)".
Granted, no one (I know) calls it Linear TV, but that wasnt the point, the point is they have never called it "Live TV".

Before streaming was a thing, it was just TV, and Live TV.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36179924)

Granted, no one (I know) calls it Linear TV, but that wasnt the point, the point is they have never called it "Live TV".

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36179940)

Then, if IPTV becomes the means of broadcasting TV, there is the question of (a) whether audiences will choose ‘on demand’ over the listed channels

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36179940)

We spend far too much time agonising over what a ‘linear channel’ is. We all know it is scheduled TV, which includes live streams, but over time the media has used the phrase very loosely to mean our conventional TV channels as shown on our EPGs.

Given the title of this thread, we need to be less picky about these terms and the pedantic detail as demonstrated in so many posts and actually debate how we see TV changing over the years.

Much now depends on the government’s attitude to switching off the transmitter signals in favour of IPTV, which they may have trouble resisting, given the international pressure to make more bandwidth available for 5G, the cost to broadcasters in paying out for conventional broadcasting over the transmitters when a cheaper alternative is available, etc.

Then, if IPTV becomes the means of broadcasting TV, there is the question of (a) whether audiences will choose ‘on demand’ over the listed channels and (b) whether the broadcasters themselves actually want to spend more than they need to so that people are given that option.

We will see, but I think I know where this will end.

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36179945)

I do, often. If someone reports a fault when playing back a recording, or while watching On Demand, I'll ask them "Does it also do it on live TV?". I can't think of a clearer way that would be generally understood.


They won't. Most people don't know or care how their television is delivered as long as it works when they switch it on.

Stream, and the FAST channels, are IPTV already. It doesn't make people think "ooh, I must watch on demand".

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36179955)

There’s nothing pedantic about trying to avoid you conflating two separate things - linear television which (although the vast majority of it is consumed over terrestrial, satellite or cable) isn’t technology dependant and the end of terrestrial, satellite and DVB-C cable broadcasts in favour of IP based solutions (which can be both linear or on demand).

You could actually end the conversation right now by clarifying.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36179964)

No, you are missing the point. On IPTV you will have the choice in front of you. Scheduled TV or on demand. It’s which the majority of people choose that will be the deciding factor.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36179968)

Yet another opportunity passed up to clarify which of the two you mean, or both?

Do you not think it’d be of benefit to have it there in black and white once and for all? Hugh could helpfully link to it in future every time I (or anyone else) gets confused. As he did with my clear definition of what I understand linear television to be.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36179968)

These are exactly the same choices presented to every Sky Q or TiVo/V6 user at present. Yet the evidence would suggest often they head straight to live tv to see what is on now.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36180019)

I don’t think your question has anything to do with what I have written in my posts. How is it relevant? You are just making waves. I refuse to drown in them.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36180037)

Defining the point you are attempting to make is entirely relevant.



Ladies and gentlemen the Emperor has no clothes.

For streaming to succeed it requires its competitors to irrationally cede their unique selling point and accessibility on every platform.

It requires competitors to bow before them, redesign their user interfaces.

Who are the average brain dead viewers that streamers so desperately need that are too lazy to navigate with their up and down keys to the content they actually want? Vegetating away on BBC 1 because the Sky remote is beyond their comprehension.

They do not exist, OB. They are a work of fiction you use to sooth yourself that you are right, against all evidence.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36180062)

It’s your responses that are fiction, jfman. You are on a frolic of your own.

Streamers abandoning their unique selling points? How the hell do you make that out?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36180074)

I didn't say streamers I said competitors. Once again you fail to comprehend that streamers are one part of the TV market as a whole.

Your "vision" above requires literally everyone else to redesign their interfaces and platforms to accommodate streaming services above linear. Why would they do that?

The average viewer doesn't want to switch on their television and immediately be bombarded with repetitive lists of content they don't subscribe to.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36180132)

I do not ‘fail to comprehend’ anything. You make too many assumptions and now you are throwing your toys out of the pram.

No redesign of interfaces is necessary. You just click on the streamer of your choice, just as you click on a TV channel. Ever heard of Roku?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36180148)

In what sense is this not calling for every major TV platform and every TV manufacturer to redesign their interfaces in favour of fledgeling streamers the end consumer may not even subscribe to?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36180148)

I have, it’s rubbish that’s why almost nobody uses it as a primary device.

You yourself said:

‘ Live/linear/scheduled/conventional TV (whatever you want to call it) are all more prominent on Sky HD/Q and Virgin Media TiVo/360 boxes, and they are the obvious easy ways into the system. If you want to go to Netflix, Prime, etc, you need to go to the apps and get in that way.’

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36180158)

Nobody is calling for anything. This will be in the hands of the TV platforms themselves. But given the trend towards streaming now, it would make sense to change the existing prominence towards the streamers rather than the (yawn) ‘conventional broadcast scheduled TV channels’, which are ultimately doomed anyway. The FAST channels will never command anywhere near the audiences of the streamers unless there is a future unforeseen innovation which captures the imagination.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36180158)

Nobody is calling for anything. This will be in the hands of the TV platforms themselves. But given the trend towards streaming now, it would make sense to change the existing prominence towards the streamers rather than the (yawn) ‘conventional broadcast scheduled TV channels’, which are ultimately doomed anyway. The FAST channels will never command anywhere near the audiences of the streamers unless there is a future unforeseen innovation which captures the imagination.

All that is required is one button that allows you to give prominence to existing TV channels and a second to streamers on set-up, which can be altered as easily as altering the profiles on the 360. Then each time you go in, you get the choice of a channel guide (if you’ve selected the first button) or the streamers if the second has been selected.

As for finding programmes, all that is required is a central watchlist, which will require either the agreement of all the streamers or alternatively an intervention by Ofcom. Only Netflix appears to be causing problems over this.

I really find it difficult to grasp what it is you don’t understand. If you genuinely do have a problem in grasping this, it would help if you were more specific rather than giving me the usual cryptic comments.

---------- Post added at 20:10 ---------- Previous post was at 20:09 ----------



Amazon and others are doing the same.

As for your last paragraph, I was describing the existing position. In the future, prominence will be given to on demand.